On 06/17/2012 03:53 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > By "better interfaces" do you mean the > 4 already-mentioned stdio extension functions, or something else?
Yes, I mean the functions that Bruno mentioned. > I mean will it find them without needing a special macro like > __MUSL__? Having a symbol like __MUSL__ helps simplify gnulib's job, because it needn't bother to use a heuristic like "if it has __stdio_read and __stdio_write, it must be musl", but can simply use __MUSL__ directly. If musl doesn't want to define __MUSL__, that's OK, gnulib can just define __MUSL__ on its own using that heuristic, as in Bruno's patch. If the heuristic goes wrong in some future platform, we'll fix it. This is normal; it's no big deal. That being said, it's nicer for gnulib if musl announced its presence with a symbol like __MUSL__.
